The Commonplace
Home Dashboard Papers Evidence Syntheses Digests 🎲
← Papers

Regulation will determine whether AI spreads prosperity or concentrates power: the EU’s comprehensive digital and AI rules give it an institutional edge, while Ukraine’s reliance on older legal structures risks higher market concentration, inequality and slower innovation; policymakers should craft unified, nationally adapted AI regulations drawing on European models.

ECONOMIC SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITALISATION AND AI: THEORETICAL AND LEGAL MODELLING
Yana Tytska, V. Anisimov, O. Matvieiev · Fetched May 22, 2026 · Baltic Journal of Economic Studies
semantic_scholar theoretical n/a evidence 7/10 relevance DOI Source PDF
The article proposes that law should be treated as an internal element of the economic system shaping how data, platforms and AI influence markets, labour, productivity and distribution, and argues that the EU's comprehensive regulatory framework outpaces Ukraine's piecemeal approach and should inform tailored national rules.

The present article examines four interrelated elements of the economy: namely, markets, labour, production, and distribution. These elements thus function as principles and laws. This approach is predicated on the premise that laws exert their influence on the economy from within rather than as extrinsic forces. The permitting of data and algorithms, the financial implications of compliance, the risk of legal action, and the equitable distribution of the benefits of digital transformation are all challenging within regulatory frameworks. It is therefore incumbent upon regulatory bodies to ensure that all individuals have access to data, support platform markets, and that artificial intelligence redistributes wealth among the owners of capital, data and labour. An additional chapter is devoted to an examination of the legal systems of Ukraine and the EU. The European Union has established standards for the digital economy and has fully embraced artificial intelligence. The scope of these regulations encompasses platform usage, digital goods liability, data protection (GDPR), and artificial intelligence (AI). However, the majority of the laws adopted in Ukraine are based on extant structures and systems. The cultural and procedural differences between Europe and Ukraine are of particular relevance to business and legal matters. These factors pertain to regulatory stability, the cost of innovation, data accessibility, the balance of market power, and guarantees for consumers and employees. It is recommended that the development of comprehensive rules for the digital economy be pursued, with these rules being adapted to suit the requirements of national institutions and with inspiration being drawn from European models. Moreover, the analysis indicates that the proliferation of digital technologies necessitates a recalibration of the equilibrium between legal certainty and technological innovation. In the absence of explicit legislation pertaining to the utilisation of digital data and artificial intelligence, the economic potential of these technologies may remain unexplored, whilst concomitantly resulting in increased market concentration, inequality, and the risk of personal information being misused. It is imperative that future research endeavours concentrate on conducting empirical assessments of the economic ramifications of artificial intelligence. This is particularly salient in the context of enhancing productivity, restructuring the labour market, and ensuring equitable income distribution. The subject of the present study is the transformation of modern economic systems as a result of digitalisation and the introduction of artificial intelligence, as well as the legal mechanisms that regulate these processes. Methodology. The study was conducted using standard scientific methods. A comparative approach was employed to analyse and synthesise various theoretical perspectives on the study of digitalisation and artificial intelligence within economic systems. In the context of technological transformation, this analysis identified key structural elements of the digital economy, including the market, labour relations, productivity dynamics and income distribution. Through this process of synthesis, a theoretical and legal model of the economic system was developed, combining economic mechanisms with the regulatory parameters that govern the use of digital platforms, algorithms, and data. Using inductive and deductive methods, the main patterns of interaction between legal regulation and technological development were identified. General decisions were also made about how legal frameworks govern the digital economy. Furthermore, a comparative approach was employed to analyse regulatory strategies for the digital economy and artificial intelligence governance in the EU and Ukraine. This allowed the study to highlight significant institutional differences between these legal systems and evaluate their potential influence on economic growth and innovation. This article aims to examine the impact of digitalisation and artificial intelligence on changes to the economic system, and to develop a theoretical and legal model that explains the interaction between technological development, economic processes, and regulatory frameworks. The study seeks to understand the influence of laws governing the use of data, algorithms, digital platforms and artificial intelligence on labour relations, productivity dynamics, income distribution and market functioning. It also examines regulatory approaches to the digital economy and artificial intelligence in the European Union and Ukraine, identifying institutional differences and assessing their impact on innovation and economic development. The results of the study show that the rise of digital technologies and artificial intelligence will dramatically improve the way existing economic systems function. Digitalisation is making data and algorithmic systems increasingly important economic resources, thereby changing the way markets operate, how labour is organised, how productivity is measured and how income is distributed. Conclusion. A study of the transformation of economic systems in the context of digitalisation and artificial intelligence has revealed that technological innovations, monetary policy and legislative measures are having an increasingly significant impact on the performance of modern economies. The proposed theoretical and legal model considers law to be an integral part of the economic system that influences income distribution, labour relations, market structure and productivity dynamics. This distinguishes it from traditional approaches. It can explain how data, artificial intelligence, digital platforms and competition laws shape the institutional conditions for developing the digital economy. A comparison of the Ukrainian and EU legal and regulatory frameworks revealed significant differences in their respective regulatory and institutional development patterns. The European Union has already established a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework for the digital economy and artificial intelligence. This includes special legislation governing data management, the platform economy, labour conditions and product liability in the digital environment. The existing Ukrainian legislation on personal data protection, electronic communications, competition policy, cybersecurity and digital sector incentives essentially forms the legal basis for the developing digital economy. However, there are some institutional gaps in the governance of digital technologies due to the absence of a unified regulatory system designed specifically for artificial intelligence. This study's practical significance lies in broadening the theoretical basis of the digital economy and artificial intelligence from economic and legal standpoints. The results of this comparative analysis and the proposed conceptual model could inform the development of more effective regulatory policies to ensure balanced interaction between technological innovation, economic growth and the protection of socioeconomic rights in the context of rapid digital transformation.

Summary

Main Finding

Law and regulation are endogenous components of the digital economic system: they materially shape how data, algorithms, platforms and AI capital translate into output, distribution and labor outcomes. The paper develops a theoretical-legal model showing that legal constraints (on data access, IP, privacy, security, compliance requirements) reduce usable data and alter the incentives for automation, investment and platform behavior. A comparative review finds the EU has a coherent, comprehensive regulatory architecture (AI Act, Data Act, Data Governance Act, GDPR, platform and liability rules) while Ukraine has fragmented building blocks and institutional gaps; policy design must balance legal certainty and innovation to realise AI’s productivity gains without exacerbating concentration and inequality.

Key Points

  • Conceptual framing
    • Digitalisation + AI transform four interlinked modules: markets (platforms), labour, production/productivity, and income distribution.
    • Law should be modelled endogenously: it changes effective inputs and costs, not just an external constraint.
  • Formal elements of the model (informal description)
    • Output Y depends on digitalisation intensity (δ), usable data (D_eff), AI capital, physical capital K, and labour L. D_eff is smaller than raw data because of legal limits.
    • Usable data D_eff is reduced by legal constraints: privacy limits (π_priv), IP/licensing limits (π_ip), and security/infrastructure limits (π_sec).
    • Platform value and participation depend on prices/fees and algorithmic ranking efficiency (a_R); algorithms thus become a source of market power.
    • Task allocation/automation depends on relative costs: human performance vs algorithmic performance adjusted for AI rent (Ir) and compliance/legal costs (c_comp). Legal compliance can make automation less attractive.
    • Aggregate income decomposed into wages (W), returns to physical capital (R_K), returns to AI capital (R_AI), and data rents (R_D). Concentration of data/AI capital can raise inequality.
  • Dynamics and productivity
    • AI-driven productivity often follows a J-shaped curve: large upfront investments and organizational change delay observable gains.
    • Clear, stable regulation can raise short-run compliance costs but build trust and encourage longer-term investment and higher-quality data.
  • Comparative regulatory finding
    • EU: comprehensive, risk-based legislative package (AI Act and supporting data/platform laws) that integrates safety, transparency, liability, data governance and competition considerations.
    • Ukraine: existing laws cover elements (personal data, electronic communications, competition, cybersecurity) and strategic AI concepts exist, but there is no unified, specialised AI regulatory framework; institutional and cultural differences affect regulatory stability, innovation costs, data access and consumer/worker protections.
  • Policy prescriptions (from authors)
    • Develop comprehensive digital economy rules adapted to national institutions, drawing on EU models.
    • Ensure data accessibility, platform market support, and policies (tax, social, labour) that can redistribute gains from AI.
    • Balance legal certainty and innovation to unlock productivity while limiting concentration and privacy harms.
  • Research gap
    • Authors call for empirical studies measuring AI’s effects on productivity, labor reallocation, and income distribution.

Data & Methods

  • No original empirical dataset: the study is theoretical and legal-analytical.
  • Methods used:
    • Comparative approach: EU vs Ukraine legal frameworks.
    • Theoretical synthesis: integrating economic literature on digital platforms, automation, productivity (e.g., J-curve), and legal instruments.
    • Inductive and deductive reasoning to build a multi-module model linking law to economic variables (markets, labor, productivity, distribution).
    • Literature grounding: references to platform economics, automation literature (Autor), productivity studies (Brynjolfsson et al.), and EU legislative texts (AI Act, Data Act, Data Governance Act).
  • Limitations acknowledged:
    • Conceptual/theoretical modeling only; empirical validation is needed.
    • Institutional specifics and enforcement capacity vary and can change outcomes beyond legal texts.

Implications for AI Economics

  • Theory & modeling
    • Treat regulation as an endogenous variable in growth and distribution models: legal parameters directly reduce effective data and raise compliance costs, altering returns to AI capital and labor choices.
    • Decompose income into wages, physical capital returns, AI capital returns and data rents to study inequality mechanisms in the digital economy.
  • Empirical research priorities
    • Quantify how legal regimes (privacy, IP, security, compliance obligations) affect D_eff, investment in AI capital, and TFP gains.
    • Measure the time-profile (J-curve) of AI adoption across sectors and the role of regulatory certainty in shortening the lag.
    • Estimate distributional effects: who's capturing AI rents (platform owners, data holders, capital owners) and how tax/social policies can redistribute.
    • Examine platform algorithms’ contribution to market power and barriers to entry under different regulation regimes.
  • Policy design
    • Carefully calibrated, transparent regulation can raise short-run costs but increase data quality, trust and long-run AI investment—models and empirical work should evaluate these trade-offs.
    • Antitrust, data-access rules and labour protections (transparency, right to review, limits on algorithmic management) are central to preventing concentration and worker precarity.
    • Country-specific regulatory design matters: transplanting EU rules to contexts with different institutional capacity requires adaptation; enforcement capability and cultural/legal norms influence outcomes.
  • Practical implication for researchers and policymakers
    • Incorporate compliance costs and data-access constraints into economic models of automation and productivity.
    • Use the paper’s framework as a checklist for empirical specifications: include variables for legal restrictiveness (privacy/IP/security), platform algorithmic power, and measures of data concentration.
    • Prioritise datasets that capture firm-level investment in AI capital, data holdings, platform market shares, and legal/regulatory events to identify causal effects.

Suggested next steps for researchers: build empirical designs exploiting regulatory changes (e.g., staggered implementation of AI/data laws, GDPR-like shocks) to estimate impacts on investment, automation, market structure and wage distribution.

Assessment

Paper Typetheoretical Evidence Strengthn/a — The paper is conceptual and comparative rather than empirical; it develops a theoretical/legal model and reviews regulatory frameworks without presenting causal estimates or original quantitative evidence. Methods Rigormedium — Relies on standard scholarly methods—literature synthesis, inductive/deductive reasoning and comparative legal analysis of EU and Ukrainian frameworks—providing coherent theory-building; however, it lacks empirical validation, clear operationalization of concepts, or robustness checks. SampleQualitative comparative analysis drawing on existing literature, statutory and regulatory texts, and institutional descriptions for the European Union and Ukraine; no primary microdata, surveys, or econometric analysis are used. Themesgovernance productivity labor_markets GeneralizabilityModel and recommendations are context-dependent (EU and Ukraine) and may not generalize to countries with different legal, institutional or market structures., No empirical testing limits predictive validity across industries, firm sizes, or labor markets., Rapidly evolving AI technologies and regulations may outdate some conclusions over time., High-level legal prescriptions may not capture firm- or worker-level heterogeneity in adoption and impacts.

Claims (10)

ClaimDirectionConfidenceOutcomeDetails
The rise of digital technologies and artificial intelligence will dramatically improve the way existing economic systems function. Firm Productivity positive high overall functioning of economic systems (productivity, market operation, labour organisation, income distribution)
0.02
Digitalisation is making data and algorithmic systems increasingly important economic resources, thereby changing the way markets operate, how labour is organised, how productivity is measured and how income is distributed. Market Structure mixed high importance of data and algorithms as economic resources and their effects on markets, labour, productivity measurement and income distribution
0.06
The European Union has established a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework for the digital economy and artificial intelligence, including rules on platform usage, digital goods liability, data protection (GDPR), and AI. Governance And Regulation positive high existence and scope of EU digital economy and AI regulations
0.12
Most Ukrainian laws relevant to the digital economy are based on existing legal structures and systems, and Ukraine currently lacks a unified regulatory system specifically designed for artificial intelligence. Governance And Regulation mixed high coverage and specificity of Ukrainian legislation for the digital economy and AI
0.12
Regulatory uncertainty and the absence of explicit legislation on digital data and artificial intelligence may leave the economic potential of these technologies unexplored while increasing market concentration, inequality, and the risk of personal information misuse. Inequality negative high risk of unexploited economic potential, market concentration, inequality, and data misuse
0.02
Regulatory bodies should ensure access to data, support platform markets, and promote that artificial intelligence redistributes wealth among the owners of capital, data and labour. Governance And Regulation positive high policy measures to improve data access, platform support, and wealth distribution effects of AI
0.02
The paper develops a theoretical and legal model that treats law as an integral part of the economic system influencing income distribution, labour relations, market structure and productivity dynamics. Governance And Regulation neutral high role of legal frameworks in shaping economic institutional conditions (income distribution, labour relations, market structure, productivity)
0.06
Comparative analysis reveals significant institutional differences between EU and Ukrainian legal systems that are relevant to regulatory stability, the cost of innovation, data accessibility, the balance of market power, and guarantees for consumers and employees. Governance And Regulation mixed high institutional differences affecting regulatory stability, innovation costs, data access, market power, consumer and employee protections
0.06
The study used standard scientific methods, employing a comparative approach and inductive and deductive methods to identify patterns of interaction between legal regulation and technological development. Other neutral high methodological approach used in the study
0.2
Future research should focus on empirical assessments of the economic ramifications of artificial intelligence, particularly regarding productivity enhancement, labour market restructuring, and equitable income distribution. Firm Productivity positive high call for empirical research on AI impacts on productivity, labour market structure, and income distribution
0.02

Notes